ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 19th January 2018, 12:01 AM   #1321
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,664
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
If there was a star with a complete spectrum like the Sun with the mass, density and radius of the Earth. If we found that, I would be effed.

If we found exoplanets that did not have molecules or compounds.

If we found exoplanets that have no hydrogen or water.

If we found rocky exoplanets the radius of the Sun. (That would be wild, and I would be effed x2).

Gosh, there's a lot. I should list all of it into a giant document. That's a really good question.

Edit: I'm not a real scientist. I'm something else, because scientists have to work inside of paradigms to get money. I don't. I am funding myself and can tell the scientists to go to hell. haha The paradigm is nothing to me, because I'm replacing it. Its like expecting the new girlfriend to be like the last. Nope. Its a whole new ball game.
Hey, Jeff. Do you agree with your colleague that the earth is only 6,000 years old or not?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2018, 01:56 PM   #1322
bobdroege7
Master Poster
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,489
Now that you have a complete theory of the universe it's time to write a Game of Thrones saga.

Good luck!
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2018, 07:23 AM   #1323
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 333
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
Now that you have a complete theory of the universe it's time to write a Game of Thrones saga.

Good luck!
I was born lucky.

Oh here's a new paper placing the sub-Neptunes that were crowd-sourced and even Io on the Wolynski-Taylor diagram.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1801.0273v1.pdf

The mainstream paper can't even address their formation in light of understanding that stellar evolution IS planet formation. It just means they have no idea what they are talking about. They are addressing resonances. A resonance chain is not going to explain how and why rocks form in the vacuum of outer space. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.03874.pdf

Not only that but they have like 20, 800lb gorillas in their offices. They can't even address the angular momentum problem, which is only one gorilla! These objects combined have way more angular momentum then their host. How is that possible in a disk? They have no explanation, because their methods and theories are false and do not work.
__________________
Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The new book.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2018, 10:48 AM   #1324
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,378
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
I was born lucky.

Oh here's a new paper placing the sub-Neptunes that were crowd-sourced and even Io on the Wolynski-Taylor diagram.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1801.0273v1.pdf

The mainstream paper can't even address their formation in light of understanding that stellar evolution IS planet formation. It just means they have no idea what they are talking about. They are addressing resonances. A resonance chain is not going to explain how and why rocks form in the vacuum of outer space.https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.03874.pdf

Not only that but they have like 20, 800lb gorillas in their offices. They can't even address the angular momentum problem, which is only one gorilla! These objects combined have way more angular momentum then their host. How is that possible in a disk? They have no explanation, because their methods and theories are false and do not work.

I skimmed the arxiv paper and while I think it assumed the nebular hypothesis, it was not about planet formation. Rather, it was about exoplanet detection and characterization. I guess when your only tool is a hammer it’s imperative to see everything as a nail.

Jeffrey, do you notice how the arxiv paper included measurement data? Where are your data? Have you ever measured anything in the course of your endeavors?

Without measurements, your idea amounts to “I cut a jawbreaker and a Tootsie Roll Pop in half. They both have concentric layers, therefore Tootsie Roll Pops are highly evolved jawbreakers”.
__________________
"You do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.”-Fran Lebowitz
"A target doesn't need to be preselected"-Jabba
ferd burfle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2018, 01:38 PM   #1325
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,789
Thumbs down jeffreyw: Yet another lying, deluded PDF with his dumb cartoon

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
I was born lucky.
Pity you have not been lucky enough to learn basic facts about stars and planets.
23 January 2018 jeffreyw: Yet another lying, deluded PDF with his lying and deluded cartoon.
Earth is dated to be 4.5 billion years old. There are stars that are even older.
SMSS J031300.362670839.3 is estimated to be 13.6 billion years old.

23 January 2018 jeffreyw: Lies that there are stars in the "K2-138 System".
K2-138 is one, single star with 5 exoplanets recently discovered by the Zooniverse Exoplanet Explorers effort.

23 January 2018 jeffreyw: Usual insanity that planets are old stars.

23 January 2018 jeffreyw: Usual lies about astronomy and scientists.

23 January 2018 jeffreyw: A "dogmatic assumption that planets are mutually exclusive of star" lie.

23 January 2018 jeffreyw: Insanity that the K2-138 planets could be > 65 billion years old - older than the universe!

23 January 2018 jeffreyw: Total delusion that Jupiter was a red dwarf that blasted layers from Io.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2018, 01:46 PM   #1326
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,789
Thumbs down jeffreyw: Utter insanity of a ~90 million year old Sun in his cartoon

This needs a separate post:
23 January 2018 jeffreyw The utter insanity of his cartoon putting the age of the Sun as ~90 million years !
The Earth has been in a orbit around the Sun for 4.5 billion years with evidence for life dating back 3.5 billion years, i.e. in the habitable zone of the Sun.

My guess is he will reply with the even more insane idea that Earth has been in orbit around multiple stars. That is insane because it requires the Earth to leave the habitable zone of a star for millions of years of travel between stars killing all life. Or the just as insane capture of Earth by passing stars identical to the Sun into their habitable zones.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2018, 02:03 PM   #1327
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,789
Thumbs down jeffreyw: Lies about the K2-138 system mainstream paper

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
The mainstream paper ...
23 January 2018 jeffreyw: Lies about the K2-138 system mainstream paper.

The K2-138 System: A Near-Resonant Chain of Five Sub-Neptune Planets Discovered by Citizen Scientists
Quote:
K2-138 is a moderately bright (V = 12.2, K = 10.3) main sequence K-star observed in Campaign 12 of the NASA K2 mission. It hosts five small (1.6-3.3R_Earth) transiting planets in a compact architecture. The periods of the five planets are 2.35 d, 3.56 d, 5.40 d, 8.26 d, and 12.76 d, forming an unbroken chain of near 3:2 resonances. Although we do not detect the predicted 2-5 minute transit timing variations with the K2 timing precision, they may be observable by higher cadence observations with, for example, Spitzer or CHEOPS. The planets are amenable to mass measurement by precision radial velocity measurements, and therefore K2-138 could represent a new benchmark systems for comparing radial velocity and TTV masses. K2-138 is the first exoplanet discovery by citizen scientists participating in the Exoplanet Explorers project on the Zooniverse platform.
This is a paper abut the discovery of the exoplanets, not about planetary formation.

The near-resonance chain is a physically measured fact !

The Discussion section has a discussion of the observed near-resonance (well duh!). Resonances are a common feature found in the closely packed, co-planar systems that have been discovered from the Kepler mission. The puzzle seems to be why the resonances are not more exact and several solutions are listed.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2018, 02:13 PM   #1328
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,789
Thumbs down jeffreyw: A "can't even address the angular momentum problem" lie

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
They can't even address the angular momentum problem,
23 January 2018 jeffreyw: A "can't even address the angular momentum problem" lie.
The problem of the distribution of angular momentum on the Solar system (99% in planets) was a reason why the nebular hypothesis was abandoned by the early 20th century. The modern nebular hypothesis is accepted because the angular momentum problem has been addressed with at last 2 solutions.

23 January 2018 jeffreyw: The idiocy that issues with working science makes ignorant delusions correct.
His deluded hypothesis has an even more massive angular momentum problem. Fantasies can never explain why stars that randomly collect planets result in systems with 99% of their angular momentum in the planets. If the capture is random then the planetary angular momentum should be about zero as there will be equal numbers of normal and retrograde orbits.

Last edited by Reality Check; 22nd January 2018 at 02:19 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2018, 02:16 PM   #1329
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 333
Originally Posted by ferd burfle View Post
I skimmed the arxiv paper and while I think it assumed the nebular hypothesis, it was not about planet formation. Rather, it was about exoplanet detection and characterization. I guess when your only tool is a hammer it’s imperative to see everything as a nail.

Jeffrey, do you notice how the arxiv paper included measurement data? Where are your data? Have you ever measured anything in the course of your endeavors?

Without measurements, your idea amounts to “I cut a jawbreaker and a Tootsie Roll Pop in half. They both have concentric layers, therefore Tootsie Roll Pops are highly evolved jawbreakers”.
Sure. I place the amount of time necessary to form the cores of evolving stars based on their diameters, given the deposition rate of ~1m per 8,200 years. http://vixra.org/pdf/1707.0407v1.pdf

Using that I can determine how long it took for the inner object to form. This means I have work to do so that it can be matched up with the WT diagram found here: http://vixra.org/pdf/1801.0273v1.pdf

Turns out Io will need to slide over to about 2-5 billion years old...

But numbers aside, we need to get the basics down first, you know. Like the laws of thermodynamics. I proposed the principles of stellar evolution. I have many dozens of them in this document and they are being refined on the daily. http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v1.pdf

What I mean is that the false worldviews accepted by establishment need to be corrected first, without doing that then the numbers won't have any meaning. The horse comes before the cart (principles before numbers). If you put numbers before principles that are sound, then you'll end up with nonsense, such as big bang, dark matter and the nebular hypothesis and all bogus accretion theories that accrete pebbles into Earth (which is bogus).

Here is another paper where I discuss the basics of interpreting chondrites: http://vixra.org/pdf/1712.0671v1.pdf
__________________
Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The new book.

Last edited by jeffreyw; 22nd January 2018 at 02:18 PM.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2018, 03:13 PM   #1330
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,789
Thumbs down jeffreyw: deluded "deposition rate" gives planets older than the universe

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Sure. ...
23 January 2018 jeffreyw: A deluded "deposition rate" gives planets older than the universe and not their measured ages.
Earth > 10 billion years. Measured = 4.54 billion years.
Mars > 14.67 billion years
Moon > 1.3 billion years old. Measured = 4.51 billion years.

23 January 2018 jeffreyw: Delusion that iron and nickel are deposited in stars to form a "iron/nickel core"
Stars are balls of plasma. If he had any astronomy knowledge he would know that stars can have a convection zone (plasma being mixed up) and/or a radiative zone (basically static plasma).

23 January 2018 jeffreyw: Complete ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics.
The laws of thermodynamics were derived from physical experiments and logical reasoning. They are not delusions ignoring the real world.

23 January 2018 jeffreyw: "false worldviews accepted by establishment" lie and ranting.

23 January 2018 jeffreyw: Idiocy that his "principles" are sound because there have no numeric support, i.e. physical data.

Last edited by Reality Check; 22nd January 2018 at 03:19 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2018, 03:43 PM   #1331
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,789
Thumbs down jeffreyw: Another ignorant and deluded PDF on chondrites

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Here is another paper where I discuss the basics of interpreting chondrites: http://vixra.org/pdf/1712.0671v1.pdf
23 January 2018 jeffreyw: Another ignorant and deluded PDF on chondrites.

23 January 2018 jeffreyw: Rant and lies about a quote from Meteorites and their Parent Planets Harry Y. McSween, Jr.
The quote is a general description of the mainstream origin of chondrites as remains of the birth of the solar system.

The rest is just
23 January 2018 jeffreyw: An ignorant and deluded rant about chondrites telling us about "a single star's interior".

A main property of chondrites is that they have never been melted or differentiated as happens in the interior of stars or planets !
Chondrite
Quote:
Chondrites are stony (non-metallic) meteorites that have not been modified due to melting or differentiation of the parent body.[1][2] They are formed when various types of dust and small grains that were present in the early solar system accreted to form primitive asteroids. They are the most common type of meteorite that falls to Earth with estimates for the proportion of the total fall that they represent varying between 85.7%[3] and 86.2%.[4] Their study provides important clues for understanding the origin and age of the Solar System, the synthesis of organic compounds, the origin of life or the presence of water on Earth. One of their characteristics is the presence of chondrules, which are round grains formed by distinct minerals, that normally constitute between 20% and 80% of a chondrite by volume.[5]

Chondrites can be differentiated from iron meteorites due to their low iron and nickel content
Chondrites are collections of bound dust and grains that have little iron or nickel.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2018, 07:14 PM   #1332
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,378
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Sure. I place the amount of time necessary to form the cores of evolving stars based on their diameters, given the deposition rate of ~1m per 8,200 years. http://vixra.org/pdf/1707.0407v1.pdf
I don’t see anything in your link about 1 m/8200 years.

Quote:
Using that I can determine how long it took for the inner object to form. This means I have work to do so that it can be matched up with the WT diagram found here: http://vixra.org/pdf/1801.0273v1.pdf

Turns out Io will need to slide over to about 2-5 billion years old...
Sounds like you’re trying to make the numbers fit your diagram. But I’ve seen nothing that shows your diagram is based on measurements.

Quote:
But numbers aside, we need to get the basics down first, you know. Like the laws of thermodynamics. I proposed the principles of stellar evolution. I have many dozens of them in this document and they are being refined on the daily. http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v1.pdf

What I mean is that the false worldviews accepted by establishment need to be corrected first, without doing that then the numbers won't have any meaning. The horse comes before the cart (principles before numbers). If you put numbers before principles that are sound, then you'll end up with nonsense, such as big bang, dark matter and the nebular hypothesis and all bogus accretion theories that accrete pebbles into Earth (which is bogus).
<chondrite stuff snipped>

Here's where I think you go off the rails. Your principles need to be based on measurements or at least consistent with them. You’re assuming your desired conclusion before you look at the evidence/data.
__________________
"You do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.”-Fran Lebowitz
"A target doesn't need to be preselected"-Jabba
ferd burfle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2018, 09:45 AM   #1333
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 333
Originally Posted by ferd burfle View Post
I don’t see anything in your link about 1 m/8200 years.



Sounds like you’re trying to make the numbers fit your diagram. But I’ve seen nothing that shows your diagram is based on measurements.


<chondrite stuff snipped>

Here's where I think you go off the rails. Your principles need to be based on measurements or at least consistent with them. You’re assuming your desired conclusion before you look at the evidence/data.
Then you didn't read the link. Why post stuff if you're not going to read what's written? The fifth sentence. You didn't even make it to the fifth sentence. Impressive.

"This brings 8,200 years per 1 meter of iron/nickel deposition inside the core of the star."

Anyways, I have created a new concept called "bioclines" to fit the different layers of organism evolution inside of a highly evolved star. Of course this is to combine symbiogenesis with stellar metamorphosis.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1801.0383v1.pdf
__________________
Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The new book.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2018, 01:00 PM   #1334
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,268
Isn't that special.
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2018, 01:10 PM   #1335
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,789
Thumbs down utter insanity of his cartoon putting the age of the Sun as ~90 million years, etc

jeffreyw: 318 items of ignorance, delusions and lies since 15th January 2015 !
  1. 23 January 2018 jeffreyw: Yet another lying, deluded PDF with his lying and deluded cartoon.
  2. 23 January 2018 jeffreyw: Lies that there are stars in the "K2-138 System".
  3. 23 January 2018 jeffreyw: Usual insanity that planets are old stars.
  4. 23 January 2018 jeffreyw: Usual lies about astronomy and scientists.
  5. 23 January 2018 jeffreyw: A "dogmatic assumption that planets are mutually exclusive of star" lie.
  6. 23 January 2018 jeffreyw: Insanity that the K2-138 planets could be > 65 billion years old - older than the universe!
  7. 23 January 2018 jeffreyw: Total delusion that Jupiter was a red dwarf that blasted layers from Io.
  8. 23 January 2018 jeffreyw The utter insanity of his cartoon putting the age of the Sun as ~90 million years !
  9. 23 January 2018 jeffreyw: Lies about the K2-138 system mainstream paper.
  10. 23 January 2018 jeffreyw: A "can't even address the angular momentum problem" lie.
  11. 23 January 2018 jeffreyw: The idiocy that issues with working science makes ignorant delusions correct.
  12. 23 January 2018 jeffreyw: A deluded "deposition rate" gives planets older than the universe and not their measured ages.
  13. 23 January 2018 jeffreyw: Delusion that iron and nickel are deposited in stars to form a "iron/nickel core"
  14. 23 January 2018 jeffreyw: Complete ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics.
  15. 23 January 2018 jeffreyw: "false worldviews accepted by establishment" lie and ranting.
  16. 23 January 2018 jeffreyw: Idiocy that his "principles" are sound because there have no numeric support, i.e. physical data.
  17. 23 January 2018 jeffreyw: Another ignorant and deluded PDF on chondrites.
  18. 23 January 2018 jeffreyw: Rant and lies about a quote from Meteorites and their Parent Planets Harry Y. McSween, Jr.
  19. 23 January 2018 jeffreyw: An ignorant and deluded rant about chondrites (unheated grains!) telling us about "a single star's interior".
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2018, 01:27 PM   #1336
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,789
Thumbs down jeffreyw: Yet another ignorant and deluded PDF with an insane "biocline" in stars

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Anyways, I have created a new concept called "bioclines" ...
30 January 2018 jeffreyw: Yet another ignorant and deluded PDF with an insane "biocline" in stars (balls of plasma!) fantasy.

There is the insane lie that stars have atmospheres of oxygen when they have atmospheres of H and He at temperatures of up to millions of degrees.

Thinks that deluded announcements based on ignorance are principles.

There is the ignorant delusion that photosynthetic bacterium form out of nothing in an oxygen atmosphere.

Lots of ignorant gibberish about bacteria and archaeon with no connection to actual evolution.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2018, 01:44 PM   #1337
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,378
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Then you didn't read the link. Why post stuff if you're not going to read what's written? The fifth sentence. You didn't even make it to the fifth sentence. Impressive.

"This brings 8,200 years per 1 meter of iron/nickel deposition inside the core of the star."
I do see the reference now, thank you. Still, your simplistic assumption that the iron “evolves” is not even wrong. The heavy elements up to iron are formed by nuclear fusion, as I’m sure you’ve been told many times.

Quote:
Anyways, I have created a new concept called "bioclines" to fit the different layers of organism evolution inside of a highly evolved star. Of course this is to combine symbiogenesis with stellar metamorphosis.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1801.0383v1.pdf
I’ll no longer follow your links; I don’t want to add to your post count as that seems to be the primary reason for your posts, since you ignore most questions posed to you.
__________________
"You do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.”-Fran Lebowitz
"A target doesn't need to be preselected"-Jabba
ferd burfle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2018, 11:27 AM   #1338
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 333
Originally Posted by Wolrab View Post
Isn't that special.
Have any of your academic friends figured it out yet? That stars and planets are actually the same objects?



They can keep their false nebular hypothesis and false accretion theories if they want. It is just, if they want to learn correct theory they have to ignore their professors. It is kinda hard to do when you're under the gun for parroting false information to get the A's and B's.
__________________
Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The new book.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2018, 01:07 PM   #1339
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,937
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Have any of your academic friends figured it out yet? That stars and planets are actually the same objects?

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Fa-snj_YZ...s1600/snip.JPG

They can keep their false nebular hypothesis and false accretion theories if they want. It is just, if they want to learn correct theory they have to ignore their professors. It is kinda hard to do when you're under the gun for parroting false information to get the A's and B's.
Ah, argument by deliberate ignorance, who would've thunk. Say, where's the red giants? Are they just part of the deliberate ignorance as well?


ETA;

Heck, how about a red supergiant like Betelgeuse?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_supergiant_star


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betelgeuse
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 26th February 2018 at 01:20 PM. Reason: eta
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2018, 02:01 PM   #1340
Crawtator
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 233
And what happens after dead moons? Asteroids and comets? And then?

Is the logical conclusion to this theory that all the grains of sand on all the beaches are each, individually really old stars? Because, just going by that graph, the Neptunian planets shouldn't be around at the current estimated age of our universe, so the universe would have to be either much older or infinite in age. If that is the case, what is to stop the logical progression of these cosmic bodies from continuing down the path that the OP is predicting?

It is completely irrational as a theory goes and doesn't even deserve my use of the word "theory".
Crawtator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2018, 04:39 PM   #1341
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,268
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Have any of your academic friends figured it out yet? That stars and planets are actually the same objects?

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Fa-snj_YZ...s1600/snip.JPG

They can keep their false nebular hypothesis and false accretion theories if they want. It is just, if they want to learn correct theory they have to ignore their professors. It is kinda hard to do when you're under the gun for parroting false information to get the A's and B's.
As a matter of fact they have. They, unlike you, would give it all up if someone would demonstrate they are wrong. Unfortunately for you, they would need more than bare assertions and YouTube videos.
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2018, 04:45 PM   #1342
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,789
Thumbs down His insane cartoon, e.g. the Earth older than it is measured, etc.

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Have any of your academic friends figured it out yet? That stars and planets are actually the same objects? ...
No one in academia or who has learned basic astronomy is deluded enough to think that stars and planets are the same objects. Read the physical facts on stars and planets in any astronomy textbook or even Wikipedia.

27 February 2018: His insane cartoon, e.g. the Earth 2.5 times older than it is measured, stars magically losing 99.9999% of their mass and impossible changing of composition to rock, blatant lie of white dwarfs being a few million years old, imaginary "grey dwarfs", imaginary "ocean worlds", missing red giants.

27 February 2018: Usual lies about the nebular hypothesis and accretion being false.

27 February 2018: Paranoia of people "parroting false information to get the A's and B's"

Last edited by Reality Check; 26th February 2018 at 04:51 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2018, 05:58 PM   #1343
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 333
Originally Posted by Crawtator View Post
And what happens after dead moons? Asteroids and comets? And then?

Is the logical conclusion to this theory that all the grains of sand on all the beaches are each, individually really old stars? Because, just going by that graph, the Neptunian planets shouldn't be around at the current estimated age of our universe, so the universe would have to be either much older or infinite in age. If that is the case, what is to stop the logical progression of these cosmic bodies from continuing down the path that the OP is predicting?

It is completely irrational as a theory goes and doesn't even deserve my use of the word "theory".
Read this and fully understand what is being said. Clearly you do not understand the theory and are just picking things that sound ridiculous to make me sound ridiculous. As is the case of many posters on this thread. It really is old. Honestly. If you don't want to contribute. Don't. Quit wasting my *********** time.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v2.pdf
__________________
Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The new book.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2018, 07:29 PM   #1344
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,789
Thumbs down Thinks insulting peoples understanding, etc. is a good idea

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Read this and fully understand what is being said....
2 March 2018: Thinks insulting peoples understanding, etc. is a good idea!

2 March 2018: Inanity of linking to an PDF we already know to be ignorant and deluded, expanded to 226 pages!

151 pages of ignorance, delusions and lies by Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski and his sidekick Barrington James Taylor - part 1

151 pages of ignorance, delusions and lies by Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski and his sidekick Barrington James Taylor - part 2

151 pages of ignorance, delusions and lies by Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski and his sidekick Barrington James Taylor - part 3

151 pages of ignorance, delusions and lies by Jeffrey Joseph Wolynski and his sidekick Barrington James Taylor - part 4

There is an ignorant delusion that an asteroid is a "piece of the core of a dead star". Followed by actual insanity.

2 March 2018: Insanity that red giants are not stars !

2 March 2018: "It is stated" insanity of directly imaging any detecting exoplanets "without the need of viewing apparatuses".
Exoplanets are small, not self luminous bodies orbiting other stars.

Last edited by Reality Check; 1st March 2018 at 07:40 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2018, 01:59 AM   #1345
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,292
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Read this and fully understand what is being said.
I just did, and I found lots of words and graphics, but no scientific theory, and certainly not anything that attempted to create new physics and explain all the things that old physics does so well. The only falsifiable prediction I found was that all brown dwarfs have strong magnetic fields, which is not much of a prediction because conventional theories also predict that brown dwarfs have strong magnetic fields. Considering the vast rejection all physics knowledge, it is surprising that you do not come up with more predictions.

Quote:
Clearly you do not understand the theory and are just picking things that sound ridiculous to make me sound ridiculous.
You sound ridiculous without any help. We try to make you understand why.

Quote:
Quit wasting my *********** time.
The time wasting is mutual. But you are clearly entertaining, so continue wasting our time!
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2018, 07:06 AM   #1346
bobdroege7
Master Poster
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,489
Go get yourself a telescope and start over.

And stay off the drugs

"It is like taking LSD and realizing how bad the government has worked you over after exiting the Marines."

Looks like the Nebular hypothesis is alive and well

http://www.almaobservatory.org/en/pr...eates-a-scene/
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster

Last edited by bobdroege7; 2nd March 2018 at 07:28 AM.
bobdroege7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2018, 09:17 AM   #1347
Crawtator
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 233
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Read this and fully understand what is being said. Clearly you do not understand the theory and are just picking things that sound ridiculous to make me sound ridiculous. As is the case of many posters on this thread. It really is old. Honestly. If you don't want to contribute. Don't. Quit wasting my *********** time.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v2.pdf
I'll let you in on a little secret...how people can determine the minimum validity of a paper. I just skip to the references to start. Practically all of the references in that paper to anything related to your theory are links to YouTube or to your own papers. So you are citing yourself to reinforce the veracity of your theory? Do you not see the problem here? Furthermore, how many times have your papers been positively cited in reputable, peer-reviewed publications?

I'm not going to waste my time reading all of that before you give me some evidence that what you are espousing has any recognition by astronomers, cosmologists, planetary geologists, or some other experts in any field. And I do mean REAL EXPERTS.

Furthermore, I'll quote an excerpt from your paper and dare you to try and defend it through actual facts here:

"The Moon and Mercury are noted examples of objects which quite possibly have originations in galaxies that have since grown, evolved, and dissipated back into the universe.
One should wonder, if the Moon really was from another galaxy, then it stands to reason human beings were once standing on an object that was once separated by millions of light years. What was once far, far away, is currently right in our rocket accessible back yard. Pieces of this dead star, from another galaxy entirely are even being kept in the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History."

Now, use real facts, not bare assertions and ridiculous assumptions that have no basis in reality, to defend this illogical conclusion. I'll be waiting patiently. Frankly, I randomly picked out that page and found that this is so far from the scientific method that it makes me disgusted to think you believe yourself to be following the scientific method. I once heard a real scientist state that one of the best thing to do to your own theory is to not believe it and attempt to destroy it yourself. If you attempt to destroy it and it survives, your belief that it may hold some truths can grow. I have a really hard time believing that you have put any effort into actually trying to disprove your own theory, based on your behavior to posters in this thread and your inability to accept any criticism at the most basic level.

Last edited by Crawtator; 2nd March 2018 at 09:18 AM. Reason: corrected
Crawtator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2018, 09:11 AM   #1348
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 333
Originally Posted by Crawtator View Post
I'll let you in on a little secret...how people can determine the minimum validity of a paper. I just skip to the references to start. Practically all of the references in that paper to anything related to your theory are links to YouTube or to your own papers. So you are citing yourself to reinforce the veracity of your theory? Do you not see the problem here? Furthermore, how many times have your papers been positively cited in reputable, peer-reviewed publications?

I'm not going to waste my time reading all of that before you give me some evidence that what you are espousing has any recognition by astronomers, cosmologists, planetary geologists, or some other experts in any field. And I do mean REAL EXPERTS.

Furthermore, I'll quote an excerpt from your paper and dare you to try and defend it through actual facts here:

"The Moon and Mercury are noted examples of objects which quite possibly have originations in galaxies that have since grown, evolved, and dissipated back into the universe.
One should wonder, if the Moon really was from another galaxy, then it stands to reason human beings were once standing on an object that was once separated by millions of light years. What was once far, far away, is currently right in our rocket accessible back yard. Pieces of this dead star, from another galaxy entirely are even being kept in the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History."

Now, use real facts, not bare assertions and ridiculous assumptions that have no basis in reality, to defend this illogical conclusion. I'll be waiting patiently. Frankly, I randomly picked out that page and found that this is so far from the scientific method that it makes me disgusted to think you believe yourself to be following the scientific method. I once heard a real scientist state that one of the best thing to do to your own theory is to not believe it and attempt to destroy it yourself. If you attempt to destroy it and it survives, your belief that it may hold some truths can grow. I have a really hard time believing that you have put any effort into actually trying to disprove your own theory, based on your behavior to posters in this thread and your inability to accept any criticism at the most basic level.
None of this matters. I have been replacing the outdated theories, and the experts better follow suit or they will be left in the dust.
__________________
Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The new book.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2018, 09:20 AM   #1349
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,937
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
None of this matters. I have been replacing the outdated theories, and the experts better follow suit or they will be left in the dust.
Experts have been replacing "outdated theories" since long before your grandfather's grandfather was born. Simply following you has never been and will never be a requirement of such.



Found a place for red giants and red supergiants on your abstract artwork yet?
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2018, 11:29 AM   #1350
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,664
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
None of this matters. I have been replacing the outdated theories, and the experts better follow suit or they will be left in the dust.
And every single "expert" would do so if your notions had any merit. But they don't. You have simply painted yourself into the same corner as JeffreyW and PixieOfKey.

You may not like that much, but your notions are the very same.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2018, 12:52 PM   #1351
Crawtator
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 233
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
None of this matters. I have been replacing the outdated theories, and the experts better follow suit or they will be left in the dust.
So...I'll take that as a concession that you cannot source any facts to support your theory on the portion I quoted....

Thanks.
Crawtator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2018, 12:58 PM   #1352
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,789
Thumbs down A lie about replacing outdated theories' etc.

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
None of this matters. I have been replacing the outdated theories, and the experts better follow suit or they will be left in the dust.
6 March 2018: A lie about replacing outdated theories', a delusion that experts take any notice of an ignorant crank on the internet.
Ignorant delusions will never replace any scientific theories.
Astronomy is not an outdated theory - there are papers being published today updating astronomy !

This is the Moon
Quote:
Several mechanisms have been proposed for the Moon's formation 4.51 billion years ago,[f] and some 60 million years after the origin of the Solar System.[26]
[f] = This age is calculated from isotope dating of lunar zircons.

You have to back up a "which quite possibly have originations in galaxies that have since grown, evolved, and dissipated back into the universe" story with facts or acknowledge that is just a fantasy.

Last edited by Reality Check; 5th March 2018 at 02:01 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 07:57 AM   #1353
bobdroege7
Master Poster
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,489
Read the post on the moon from wiki brought to us by Reality Check

Like two bullets fired from the same gun

"Studies of meteorites originating from inner Solar System bodies such as Mars and Vesta show that they have very different oxygen and tungsten isotopic compositions as compared to Earth, whereas Earth and the Moon have nearly identical isotopic compositions"

The Earth and Moon came from the same place
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 04:04 PM   #1354
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 21,789
A good explanation of Why Do All The Planets Orbit In The Same Plane? for jeffreyw to deny in favor of the dumb idea that random capture of planets will magically put them in the same plane.

Simply put:
Start with a molecular cloud of gas. It cools down with time so its pressure decreases. Gravity makes the cloud collapse. The cloud has over dense regions so gravity makes the cloud irregular and oval as we see in planetary nebula. That includes the over dense regions.

We now have "imperfect, overdense, asymmetric clumps". These will collapse into protoplanetary disks as in Hubble images.

We could just assume that these disks will stay as disks and planets will from in a disk. But we can do better - use simulations to see what the laws of physics tell us. This is that the disk will get thinner, planets will form in close to a singe plane and start to clear their orbits. We have an image of a planetary system doing just that.

As the author puts it:
Quote:
So why are all the planets in the same plane? Because they form from an asymmetric cloud of gas, which collapses in the shortest direction first; the matter goes “splat” and sticks together; it contracts inwards but winds up spinning around the center, with planets forming from imperfections in that young disk of matter; they all wind up orbiting in the same plane, separated only by a few degrees — at most — from one another.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 05:44 AM   #1355
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,268
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
A good explanation of Why Do All The Planets Orbit In The Same Plane? for jeffreyw to deny in favor of the dumb idea that random capture of planets stars will magically put them in the same plane.
FTFY
He has the new young star magically slipping into the system's center, nudging the old star/new planet out to a stable orbit along with the rest of the old stars/planets of the system.
I believe capturing a rogue planet into the plane of a system may be possible. Very improbable, though.
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 01:52 PM   #1356
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 333
Originally Posted by Crawtator View Post
So...I'll take that as a concession that you cannot source any facts to support your theory on the portion I quoted....

Thanks.
No its just arguing online is like playing chess with a pigeon.

Here is a new paper that explains that the "false positives" are not false. Using a 2000+ year old Greek definition of star vs. wandering star (planet) is not the way forward, yet its still taught in universities, even today.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1803.0097v1.pdf
__________________
Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The new book.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 01:57 PM   #1357
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,350
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
No its just arguing online is like playing chess with a pigeon.

Here is a new paper that explains that the "false positives" are not false. Using a 2000+ year old Greek definition of star vs. wandering star (planet) is not the way forward, yet its still taught in universities, even today.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1803.0097v1.pdf
Two delusional lies in the first two sentences. Stopped reading.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 02:02 PM   #1358
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 333
Originally Posted by Wolrab View Post
FTFY
He has the new young star magically slipping into the system's center, nudging the old star/new planet out to a stable orbit along with the rest of the old stars/planets of the system.
I believe capturing a rogue planet into the plane of a system may be possible. Very improbable, though.
What people forget is that statistically 1 out of 200,000,000,000+ is not anywhere near a sample size. In fact, it is essentially zero data.

One solar system out of hundreds of billions.

Now that actual data is rolling in, and we're finding objects orbiting other systems that are not in the same plane, some are even retrograde, well. That just completely does away with the accepted theories. In fact, all the objects in our system came from somewhere else.

As well, some objects orbited others in different configurations, while they were in different stages to their OWN evolution.

yea. It is not cosmos perfection, it is more the appearance of perfection. It is much more chaotic when you speed up time, and give objects in our system proper evolutionary paths as I'm doing.
__________________
Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The new book.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2018, 07:48 AM   #1359
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,268
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
What people forget is that statistically 1 out of 200,000,000,000+ is not anywhere near a sample size. In fact, it is essentially zero data.

One solar system out of hundreds of billions.

Now that actual data is rolling in, and we're finding objects orbiting other systems that are not in the same plane, some are even retrograde, well. That just completely does away with the accepted theories. In fact, all the objects in our system came from somewhere else.

As well, some objects orbited others in different configurations, while they were in different stages to their OWN evolution.

yea. It is not cosmos perfection, it is more the appearance of perfection. It is much more chaotic when you speed up time, and give objects in our system proper evolutionary paths as I'm doing.
Do you have any evidence of a star replacing another star in the center of a solar system? Thought not.
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2018, 08:25 AM   #1360
bobdroege7
Master Poster
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,489
Ha!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRAS_16293-2422
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:31 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.